Prenatal diagnosis of Desbuquois dysplasia Type 1: Utilization of high‐density SNP array to map homozygosity and identify the gene

2019 ◽  
Vol 179 (12) ◽  
pp. 2490-2493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine R. Forster ◽  
Jody E. Hooper ◽  
Karin J. Blakemore ◽  
Ahmet A. Baschat ◽  
Julie Hoover‐Fong
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Na Ma ◽  
Hui Xi ◽  
Jing Chen ◽  
Ying Peng ◽  
Zhengjun Jia ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Emerging studies suggest that low‐coverage massively parallel copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq) more sensitive than chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for detecting low-level mosaicism. However, a retrospective back-to-back comparison evaluating accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of CNV-seq compared with CMA is warranted. Methods A total of 72 mosaicism cases identified by karyotyping or CMA were recruited to the study. There were 67 mosaic samples co-analysed by CMA and CNV-seq, comprising 40 with sex chromosome aneuploidy, 22 with autosomal aneuploidy and 5 with large cryptic genomic rearrangements. Results Of the 67 positive mosaic cases, the levels of mosaicism defined by CNV-seq ranged from 6 to 92% compared to the ratio from 3 to 90% by karyotyping and 20% to 72% by CMA. CNV-seq not only identified all 43 chromosomal aneuploidies or large cryptic genomic rearrangements detected by CMA, but also provided a 34.88% (15/43) increased yield compared with CMA. The improved yield of mosaicism detection by CNV-seq was largely due to the ability to detect low level mosaicism below 20%. Conclusion In the context of prenatal diagnosis, CNV-seq identified additional and clinically significant mosaicism with enhanced resolution and increased sensitivity. This study provides strong evidence for applying CNV-seq as an alternative to CMA for detection of aneuploidy and mosaic variants.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lili Zhou ◽  
Zhaoke Zheng ◽  
Yunzhi Xu ◽  
Xiaoxiao Lv ◽  
Chenyang Xu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The phenotypes of uniparental disomy (UPD) are variable, which may either have no clinical impact, lead to clinical signs and symptoms. Molecular analysis is essential for making a correct diagnosis. This study involved a retrospective analysis of 4512 prenatal diagnosis samples and explored the molecular characteristics and prenatal phenotypes of UPD using a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array. Results Out of the 4512 samples, a total of seven cases of UPD were detected with an overall frequency of 0.16%. Among the seven cases of UPD, two cases are associated with chromosomal aberrations (2/7), four cases (4/7) had abnormal ultrasonographic findings. One case presented with iso-UPD (14), and two case presented with mixed hetero/iso-UPD (15), which were confirmed by Methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA) as maternal UPD (15) associated with Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS). Four cases had iso-UPD for chromosome 1, 3, 14, and 16, respectively; this is consistent with the monosomy rescue mechanism. Another three cases presented with mixed hetero/isodisomy were consistent with a trisomy rescue mechanism. Conclusion The prenatal phenotypes of UPD are variable and molecular analysis is essential for making a correct diagnosis and genetic counselling of UPD. The SNP array is a useful genetic test in prenatal diagnosis cases with UPD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document